Clinical evaluation of hip joint diseases: total hip arthroplasty to support patients’ quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Japan's super-aged society, medical care supporting the patients' quality of life (QOL) is becoming increasingly important. This study aimed to evaluate the current applications of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), with a focus on Japanese patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA) undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). We reviewed the literature on PROMs, with a focus on (i) available guidelines, (ii) validated questionnaires in Japanese-version, and (iii) methods to assess responsiveness and interpretation. Several guidelines were available, including a checklist for methodological quality, the study protocol, and reporting of PROMs. The Short-Form 36/12-Item Health Survey is used for multidimensional evaluation. The EuroQol 5 dimension (EQ-5D) is the most commonly used preference-based utility. To assess disease-specific QOL in patients with hip OA undergoing THA, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Oxford Hip Score, Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Forgotten Joint Score-12, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association Hip Disease Evaluation Questionnaire are used. The Central Sensitization Inventory can be used to assess central sensitivity syndrome. Ikigai-9 is used to assess ikigai (a comprehensive concept that gives meaning to life) and is also validated in English. The smallest detectable change (SDC) can be used to evaluate responsiveness. The minimal important change, minimal clinically important difference, and patient acceptable symptom state can be used to aid in interpreting results. Several instruments and techniques are established to facilitate shared decision-making for Japanese patients undergoing THA to support their QOL. This review provides a broad overview of PROMs that can benefit future studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".